4E, the Grind and Why I Play

[I'm A Banana]

The Grind can be ameliorated with some clever pacing. Follow a three-part structure for combat:

Rounds 1-2: Introduction. Everyone gets to know what they're fighting.

Rounds 3-5: Building Action. Use common powers, at-wills, etc. Have a lot of push-and-pull.

Rounds 6-7: Climax. Use the big guns, change the battle dramatically, and give the side that is losing a last, desperate shot at victory. After the climax, the battle ends, even if there's things still standing (they give up, or run away, or whatever)

It's not a perfect solution, but it helps spend the time more wisely.

The powers list is a more difficult problem 'cuz messing with that messes with the structure and balance of 4e, and I basically agree with the OP that is makes everything quite similar. I like fighters having more things to do every round, I just don't like everyone to be vancian. I still haven't found a satisfactory solution for the system, and I may not be able to since the system is so tightly woven into the structure of 4e that messing with it or replacing it would risk breaking the game quite easily. The powers system is very fragile.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I am not sure how I have to look at my play experience to come to the conclusion that characters of different classes all feel the same.

Did a Ranger focusing on archery play identical to a Fighter focusing on Greatswords differently, too? What about Cleric and Wizard? Did they play the same? "Pick a spell, blast off".

But then, I don't particularly care to get into this mindset. I am in fact glad I am not, because I experienced the strong differences between the roles and classes.

MAybe it is because people only see "Damage + Effect" as formula and not the fact that Effect can be quite diverse and make you play your character very differently. There is a big difference between a 2W + Daze Power and a 2W + Ally can spend a Healing Surge power. The tactical applications and the flavor are totally different. Of course the end goal is the same - all enemies should lie dead on the ground and all allies standing upright. But that goal is true in most RPG combat systems! The end goal is not what we really care about - if that was the case, we could resolve combat with a coin flip. The interesting thing is the way we achieve the goal! And the individual classes make a big difference here.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I am not sure how I have to look at my play experience to come to the conclusion that characters of different classes all feel the same.

I wouldn't QUITE go that far. I would say that I really want more variety in play.

In 3e, there was a big difference in the strategy of playing a wizard vs. playing a cleric vs. playing a fighter vs. playing a psion vs. playing a monk vs. playing a rogue. There were different resources to manage in different quantities, different rates of replenishment, different means of access to the abilities, different circumstances in which they'd be useful.

In 4e, all the resources are managed the same. All abilities have the same narrow result (damage + effect). They are all recovered at the same rate, all accessed in the same way, and all useful under 99% of all circumstances.

Like all homogeneity, this has its benefits (no accidental suck, easy to balance) and it's problems (sameness, grind).

I don't just want different things to do, I want different ways to do them. There is a difference between classes in 4e, but the difference is mostly contained in the damage/effect formula (how much damage, which effects, against how many creatures), rather than at the level of "power". If I don't like the damage/effect formula, or the encounter/daily/at-will distinction, or "vancian fighters," I've got no alternative. At that level, everything is the same (and plays the same, and has the same considerations).

 

[AllisterH]

I can see KM's PoV. However, I do believe that a large number of people think a warlock plays exactly the same like a fighter.

Personally, I never reallly believed that you needed separate mechanics for every set of classes. Especially since 3.5E highlighted this fallacy in the latter days.

Does a crusader play the same as a warblade or as a swordsage?

Similarly, does a beguiler, dread necromancer and a warmage feel the same?

 

[I'm A Banana]

Personally, I never reallly believed that you needed separate mechanics for every set of classes.

I don't think it's necessary, but I do think it is beneficial. It creates a more diverse game, a stronger game, with more concepts elaborated within it. It makes the game a better "system" for launching your own games. It makes the game less of a program, and more of an unexpected delight. It increases the amount of things to learn and thus the amount of things to master, and, at the core of all games, is the human fascination with learning something new. It adds replay value, it adds interest, and it adds dimension.

It has it's risks, but I think 4e did the baby-bathwater trick with the powers system.

And you can make a vanilla "one size fits all" powers system, but, as this thread and multiple others demonstrates, one size never really fits all.

Does a crusader play the same as a warblade or as a swordsage?

Similarly, does a beguiler, dread necromancer and a warmage feel the same?

I dunno from the Bo9S, since it was more about the styles than the classes.

But the last three? Yeah, they played pretty dramatically differently, in different sorts of challenges (the sole axis of difference wasn't, of course, combat difference in 3e, but even in combat they were pretty distinct).

And those three played pretty distinctly differently from the former three as well.

 

[Agamon]

I guess I can kind of see where the whole "every class looks the same" mindset comes from. In it's most basic sense, as a DM, you can watch a player choose a power, roll a d20, roll some dice for damage and say what effect occurs. Obviously that's what everyone does, so in that sense, there is some sameness. This was a conscious design goal for 4e, which may or may not appeal, depending on taste.

I like to look at it a bit deeper though. The ways the attacks happen and their consequences are very different, both gamewise (you know for sure when your group is missing a certain role, so obviously there are differences) and especially flavorwise. There's big difference between a fighter swinging his sword at everyone around him and a wizard conjuring up an aura of fire around her. And it's the flavor that really differentiates the classes and what they do in a battle for me.

 

[AllisterH]

dunno from the Bo9S, since it was more about the styles than the classes.

But the last three? Yeah, they played pretty dramatically differently, in different sorts of challenges (the sole axis of difference wasn't, of course, combat difference in 3e, but even in combat they were pretty distinct).

And those three played pretty distinctly differently from the former three as well.

Which kind of proves you don't NEED distinct mechanics for different classes. No?

As you pointed out, a Setting Sun specialist certainly played differently from a White Raven focused character, yet both on paper have the same exact format

 

[I'm A Banana]

Which kind of proves you don't NEED distinct mechanics for different classes. No?

As you pointed out, a Setting Sun specialist certainly played differently from a White Raven focused character, yet both on paper have the same exact format

Actually, I said "I don't know from Bo9S." I haven't really seen it in play. I'm not sure how different the styles are from each other. I know the recharge rate and access rate is different for different classes, but I'm not sure they're that different.

I can tell you that a beguiler and a swordsage do play very differently, in part, because they access their powers in different ways.

I can also tell you that a cleric and a wizard play differently because they have to consider different things with their resources -- Clerics have to worry about spending spells to heal vs. spells to attack, while wizards need to trade utility for offense. And the binder has all-day at-will effects that he changes out, and the warlock has at-will effects that she always has.

None of those differences exist in 4e at all, so I'm not sure this really adds evidence to your argument.

 

[Storminator]

I like to look at it a bit deeper though. The ways the attacks happen and their consequences are very different, both gamewise (you know for sure when your group is missing a certain role, so obviously there are differences) and especially flavorwise. There's big difference between a fighter swinging his sword at everyone around him and a wizard conjuring up an aura of fire around her. And it's the flavor that really differentiates the classes and what they do in a battle for me.

Even beyond the flavor issue the classes operate vastly differently.

Our wizard is effective from anywhere on the battlefield. He has close and long ranged powers, he deals immediate and ongoing damage. He moves enemies and holds them in place. He can go down in a hurry, or he can blow powers to keep himself up. He has powers in all action types: minor, move, standard, free and reaction.

Our fighter has no range. If you get near him he will grind you down. He's consistent, methodical, and tough. He has ordinary movement - nothing fancy. He has no use for minor actions, except for a single dragonbreath per encounter.

The rogue is spectacular, both in success and failure. His damage is incomparable, and his durability is very poor. He has short range, but range at will. He is highly mobile, almost to the point of choosing where he wants to be. Tactics revolve around him... who will he flank? With whom will he flank? Who will he flank next? These are the most important questions of any fight. He has no use for minor actions.

Our warlord is playing on a different level altogether. He has passive powers, like the initiative and action point bonuses. He controls our team movements, he moves the enemy, and he grants the rest of us extra actions. When he fights, he does it at reach, the only one of us that can. He heals. He uses all action types.

Our swordmage teleports like a blink dog. He deals damage to groups, to singles, and to pairs. He can't (won't?) hold point, but he deals a steady stream of damage everywhere. He uses all action types, but really shines when he's attacking out of turn. It seems like he does almost as much damage when using his reaction attacks. He's the best suited to action on his own - tough, highly mobile for when it goes sour, and solid damage.

My cleric uses more actions, and has more encounter powers than any other PC. If I had an extra minor action I would use it almost every turn. I can be extremely effective, even if I never attack. My healing is extraordinarily good. Everything I do that's important is measured by how well I help the rest of the party - how much did I heal? Who did I give the attack bonus to? The defense? The save? Did I grant the rogue combat advantage? Did I trigger a Second Wind?

All classes play the same? Not even close.

PS

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Clerics have to worry about spending spells to heal vs. spells to attack

Just to pick out one uniqueness: Clerics in 4E have to worry about when to spend actions to heal and when to spend actions to boost attacks, for example. That's not a concern of the Wizard or the Fighter. The Wizard has to worry whether he has to target multiple foes or whether he better focuses on one and limits its maneuverability or offensive abilities.

The classes still have their "mini-games". The resource pool they have might look the same, but the contents are different. I do not think a game is necessarily "enriched" (or even better) if it tries to make the resource pools different. Especially since even 3E already kept one common major resource pool the same - the number of actions each character had.

I might think differently if casting times in 3E where different. (And I think that would also have made the whole balance considerations a lot better - if you spend 5 rounds to pump energy into your fireball, it's totally justified to deal even 10d6 points of damage in a 20 ft radius burst.)